Final answer:
Sociologists hold diverse views on the extent to which role allocation leads to a meritocratic society. While functionalist perspectives may support the notion, conflict theorists highlight systemic barriers that prevent a pure meritocracy. The reality is influenced by an array of factors including social capital and education.
Step-by-step explanation:
Sociologists have mixed opinions on whether role allocation results in a meritocracy. Fundamentally, a meritocracy is a system where social stratification is determined by individual merit, consisting of personal efforts and innate abilities. However, as sociologists scrutinize modern societies, they note that pure meritocracy is an ideal, and no society fully embodies this system because social standing is influenced by a variety of factors aside from personal merit. For instance, functionalists might argue that society rewards hard work and skill with upward mobility, shaping a meritocratic system.
In contrast, conflict theorists might emphasize the role of social capital and existing inequalities, which can act as barriers to achieving success based solely on merit. Additionally, factors such as cultural ideologies and educational systems play significant roles in shaping one's opportunities and outcomes, often swaying the balance away from true meritocracy.